Abstract

The 2016 Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (2016 UDHS) was implemented by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics. The survey sample was designed to provide estimates of population and health indicators including fertility and child mortality rates for the country as a whole, for the urban and rural areas separately, and for each of the 15 regions in Uganda (South Central, North Central, Busoga, Kampala, Lango, Acholi, Tooro, Bunyoro, Bukedi, Bugisu, Karamoja, Teso, Kigezi, Ankole, and West Nile).

The primary objective of the 2016 UDHS project is to provide up-to-date estimates of basic demographic and health indicators. Specifically, the 2016 UDHS collected information on: • Key demographic indicators, particularly fertility and under-5, adult, and maternal mortality rates • Direct and indirect factors that determine levels of and trends in fertility and child mortality • Contraceptive knowledge and practice • Key aspects of maternal and child health, including immunisation coverage among children, prevalence and treatment of diarrhoea and other diseases among children under age 5, and maternity care indicators such as antenatal visits and assistance at delivery • Child feeding practices, including breastfeeding, and anthropometric measures to assess the nutritional status of women, men, and children • Knowledge and attitudes of women and men about sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV/AIDS, potential exposure to the risk of HIV infection (risk behaviours and condom use), and coverage of HIV testing and counselling (HTC) and other key HIV/AIDS programmes • Anaemia in women, men, and children • Malaria prevalence in children as a follow-up to the 2014-15 Uganda Malaria Indicator Survey • Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) in children • Key education indicators, including school attendance ratios, level of educational attainment, and literacy levels • The extent of disability • Early childhood development • The extent of gender-based violence

The information collected through the 2016 UDHS is intended to assist policymakers and program managers in evaluating and designing programs and strategies for improving the health of the country’s population.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual
• Children age 0-5
• Woman age 15-49
• Man age 15-54

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sampling frame used for the 2016 UDHS is the frame of the Uganda National Population and Housing Census (NPHC), conducted in 2014; the sampling frame was provided by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics. The census frame is a complete list of all census enumeration areas (EAs) created for the 2014 NPHC. In Uganda, an EA is a geographic area that covers an average of 130 households. The sampling frame contains information about EA location, type of residence (urban or rural), and the estimated number of residential households.

The 2016 UDHS sample was stratified and selected in two stages. In the first stage, 697 EAs were selected from the 2014 Uganda NPHC: 162 EAs in urban areas and 535 in rural areas. One cluster from Acholi subregion was eliminated because of land disputes. Households constituted the second stage of sampling.

For further details on sample design, see Appendix A of the final report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Cleaning operations

All electronic data files for the 2016 UDHS were transferred via IFSS to the UBOS central office in Kampala, where they were stored on a password-protected computer. The data processing operation included registering and checking for inconsistencies, incompleteness, and outliers. Data editing and cleaning included structure and consistency checks to ensure completeness of work in the field. The central office also conducted secondary editing, which required resolution of computer-identified inconsistencies and coding of open-ended questions. The data were processed by four staff (two programmers and two data editors) who took part in the main fieldwork training. They were supervised by three senior staff from UBOS. Data editing was accomplished with CSPro software. Secondary editing and data processing were initiated in August 2016 and completed in January 2017.

Response rate

A total of 20,791 households were selected for the sample, of which 19,938 were occupied. Of the occupied households, 19,588 were successfully interviewed, which yielded a response rate of 98%.

In the interviewed households, 19,088 eligible women were identified for individual interviews. Interviews were completed with 18,506 women, yielding a response rate of 97%. In the subsample of households selected for the male survey, 5,676 eligible men were identified and 5,336 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 94%. Response rates were higher in rural than in urban areas, with the ruralurban difference being more pronounced among men (95% and 90%, respectively) than among women (98% and 95%, respectively).

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: nonsampling errors and sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 2016 Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (UDHS) to minimise this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 2016 UDHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability among all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

Sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95% of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 2016 UDHS sample is the result of a multi-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulas. Sampling errors are computed in SAS, using programs developed by ICF. These programs use the Taylor linearisation method to estimate variances for survey estimates that are means, proportions, or ratios. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.

A more detailed description of estimates of sampling errors are presented in Appendix B of the survey final report.

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables - Household age distribution - Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women - Age distribution of eligible and interviewed men - Completeness of reporting - Births by calendar years - Reporting of age at death in days - Reporting of age at death in months - Completeness of information on siblings - Sibship size and sex ratio of siblings - Pregnancy-related mortality trends

See details of the data quality tables in Appendix C of the survey final report.

Abstract

The Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS), on behalf of the Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF) under the Office of the Prime Minister conducted the Northern Uganda Survey between August and December 2004.

The survey covered all the 18 districts within the NUSAF region namely, West Nile (covering; Adjumani, Arua, Moyo, Nebbi and Yumbe); Acholi (comprising Gulu, Kitgum and Pader); Lango (consisting of Apac and Lira); Teso (comprising Kaberamaido, Katakwi, Kumi, Soroti and Pallisa); Karamoja (consisting of Kotido,Moroto, Nakapiripirit).

The main objective of the Northern Uganda Survey (NUS) was to collect high quality and timely data on demographic and socio-economic characteristics of household population for monitoring development performance as well as providing baseline indicators for the different socio- economic and vulnerable groups.

The total estimated population in the NUSAF region was 7.1 million persons.Overall, about 53 percent of the population was aged below 15 years. An average household size of 5.2 persons was revealed, similar to that revealed by the 2002 Population and Housing Census for the Northern region. Findings show that the literacy rate for males (68 percent) was higher than that of females (41 percent). Of all persons aged 6-25 years, about 14 percent had no formal schooling. About one in every ten children who had left school was an orphan. About 26 percent of the study population reported at least one illness or symptom in the thirty days preceding the survey. This finding is consistent with the NSDS 2004 where incidence of sickness was reported at 26 percent in the northern region.

The Labour-force participation rate was 67 percent. The monthly household consumption expenditure in the NUSAF region (Shs.72,800) was lower than the national monthly consumption expenditure (Shs.139,300) recorded in UNHS 2002/03. In the NUSAF region, most houses were grass thatched and had walls made of either un-burnt bricks and mud, or poles and mud. The majority of households in the NUSAF region have access to safe drinking water.Households that had experienced shocks were asked to state a maximum of three shocks in descending order of severity. Rebel attacks emerged as the most serious household shock (36 percent) followed by drought or famine (32 percent). Communities had poor access to Agricultural input markets as well as other financial services.

Geographic coverage

The survey covered all the 18 districts within the NUSAF region namely, West Nile (covering; Adjumani, Arua, Moyo, Nebbi and Yumbe); Acholi (comprising Gulu, Kitgum and Pader); Lango (consisting of Apac and Lira); Teso (comprising Kaberamaido, Katakwi, Kumi, Soroti and Pallisa); Karamoja (consisting of Kotido, Moroto, Nakapiripirit)

Analysis unit

• Communities
• Households
• Individuals

Universe

The survey covered all usual residents.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The NUS sample was drawn through a stratified two-stage sampling design. The Enumeration Area (EA) was the first-stage sampling unit and the household was the second-stage sampling unit. The sampling frame used for selection of first stage units (fsus) was the list of EAs with the number of households based on the 2002 Population and Housing Census. In order to select the second stage units,which are the households, a listing of households was done in all selected EAs.In the case of the camps, the first stage consisted of selecting IDP camps based on the population in each IDP camp. Each IDP camp is divided into blocks/zones and a sample of blocks was selected using simple random sampling. Within each block, households were selected and interviewed. The details of the sampling design are given in Appendix I of the NUS Report in External Resources.

The size required for the sample was determined by taking into consideration the degree of precision (reliability) desired for the survey estimates, the cost and operational limitations, and the efficiency of the design. NUS covered a sample size of 4787 households in 479 communities (EAs). Of these, about 900 households were in IDP camps. In addition, about 262 households in 100 Enumeration Areas were panel households (interviewed in the 1999, and where possible, 1992 household surveys).

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Two questionnaires were administered, namely a community questionnaire and a socio-economic questionnaire.

The socio-economic questionnaire included a section on vulnerability and addressed matters relating to internally displaced persons (IDPs), children who have been abducted (ex-abductees), youth who have given up arms for peaceful livelihood alternatives (gun drop outs), youth whose lives have been disrupted by long civil strife, the aged, members of female headed households, and orphans. This module also covered the following areas: health of household members, disability, education, migration, housing conditions, household and enterprise assets, household shocks,and consumption expenditure.

The community questionnaire addressed community facilities including access to schools, health centers, roads, extension services and markets. It also addressed major community events, land tenure, community history, social capital, community projects undertaken and characteristics of the education and health infrastructure used by the community.

Cleaning operations

All questionnaires for NUS 2004 were returned to UBOS for processing. The questionnaires were manually edited using a set of scrutiny notes to guide the manual checking. In addition, range and consistency checks were included in the data-entry computer program. More intensive and thorough checks were carried out using MS-ACCESS.

Response rate

The response rate for the NUS 2004 was about 98 percent. A total of 4787 households were interviewed out of the 4888 households initially targeted. Non-response mainly resulted from insecurity, out migration and resettlement into IDP camps.